November 13, 2001
The United States Environmental Protection Agency, (EPA) in a letter sent to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, has joined a growing list of governmental entities voicing grave concerns about the possible development of Brush Valley. The Brush Valley Preservation Association (BVPA) views these latest comments as the most definitive confirmation to date of BVPA's basic contention: Brush Valley is too valuable and fragile to be developed.
In the EPA letter, a copy of which was forwarded to the BVPA, the author states "Due to the significance of potential environmental impacts and inadequate analysis of environmental issues, EPA has assigned this document (the BOP's draft environmental impact study) a rating of EO-2, Environmental Objections-Insufficient Information". The EPA apparently assigned the above rating because of major concerns dealing with the methodology used by the BOP in its study. The following quotes taken from the EPA's letter highlight these concerns:
Of particular interest is the quote which reads "EPA's major objection is the failure of the DEIS (Bureau of Prison's Draft Environmental Impact Study) to sufficiently analyze the alternatives considered, and, accordingly, its failure to provide the public with the rationale behind the Federal Bureau of Prison's (FBP) choice of a selected alternative".
"The document provides no clear basis for selecting one particular site over other potential sites". These particular comments seem to reinforce BVPA's argument that the BOP wanted Brush Valley all along, and has chosen not to give fair consideration to alternate sites, especially Natalie East. These deficiencies in the BOP's study, in addition to the extreme environmental problems associated with developing Brush Valley, have led the EPA to request that the BOP do a supplemental EIS, and suggest consideration of alternatives.
It is also clear from reading this, as well as other State Agency comments, that any development in Brush Valley would be environmentally dangerous. It is far too fragile and intricate to absorb construction in one area without irreparable damage to the entire valley. This makes Mr. Cwalina's suggestion of sparing 50 acres even more insulting. The EPA letter can be seen in its entirety on the BVPA web site.
As events progress it is becoming increasingly unlikely that a prison will be constructed in Brush Valley, thus opening the possibility of the valley being acquired and preserved for the public to enjoy. This has been BVPA's stated goals from the beginning, and we humbly believe that we had a hand in bringing about these events. As for the people who insist that BVPA is in opposition to a prison in our area, we can only answer these lies by pointing to all of our releases and statements. In almost every one you can find support for placing the prison at Natalie East, the site BVPA has spent so much time and energy researching. Yes, we have presented some of the problems relating to prisons, but this was simply to balance the exaggerations, false promises, and misinformation put forth by the Brush Valley destruction supporters. Even if the facts are negative, truth is always more desirable than propaganda.
Now that it is becoming clear that we can and should preserve Brush Valley, and yes, that we can have a prison at Natalie, all interested parties should come together to assure these goals. Cwalina, Lewis, Helfrick, Belfante and Kanjorski, as well as the Chamber of Commerce and the local media, should now set aside their egos, agendas, or what ever else drives them, and do what is right for all of our residents. If these people persist in their narrow minded scheme of destroying Brush Valley while ignoring the possibility of building the prison at Natalie East, we may very well lose what ever boost a prison could bring. BVPA has proven we can have a park and a prison, and we believe our people deserve both. Why don't the above mentioned people believe the same?
John R. Faraguna
President/BVPA